Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/432/2015

Sachin Tyagi S/o Subhash Tyagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

A1 Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant Inperson

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No. 432 of 2015.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 01.12.2015.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 20.12.2016.

Sachin Tyagi aged about 31 years son of Sh. Subhash Tyagi resident of 524, Kailash Bhawan, Gobindpuri, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. A1 Communications, 227, Chotti Line, Near GNG College Road, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. Infotech Computers & Communication, SCO 204, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal-132001 through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. Paramatrix Info Solution, SCO-112-113, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner.
4. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde  Tower ‘C’  UB City No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore-560001 Karnatka State throght its Managing Director                                                                               

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                            …Respondents.

                        

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:   Sh. Subhash Tyagi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                 Respondent No.1 already given up.  

   None for respondent No.2.

               Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.

               Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 4 

                          

ORDER

 

1.                    The present complaint has filed by Sh. Sachin Tyagi under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                   Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased a mobile model I-phone-6 bearing IMEI No. 355900069194472 for a sum of Rs. 53,500/- vide Bill No. 033 dated 12.12.2014 from the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1). At the time of selling the mobile phone in question to the complainant, OP No.1 assured the complainant that the said mobile phone was of best quality and free from any type of manufacturing defect. The complainant has purchased the aforesaid mobile phone for his comfort and mobility but it became bundle of defect for him. Not only this, the friends of the complainant also used to tease the complainant as they now said that the mobile phone of the complainant is as “peepa”. Because of the aforementioned act and conduct of the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) the complainant is suffering a lot of mental agony, physically and financial harassment as the OPs have sold the defective mobile phone which is having manufacturing defect. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 53,500/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP No.2, however, written statement was received by post and OPs No.3 & 4 appeared and filed their written statement separately whereas OP No.1 was given up vide order dated 16.05.2016.

4.                     OP No. 2 filed its written statement mentioning therein that OP No.2 is authorized service provider for the Apple product as per terms and conditions of the warranty policy. Apple offer free of costs service to any hardware failure in its products in warranty, which a customer can avail service from any of the nearby service centre throughout India. Except terms and conditions of the warranty policy, nothing has been mentioned in respect of this complaint by the Op No.2. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against Op No.2.

5.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complaint is misconceived without any merit and deserves out rightly rejection; there is no cause of action; there is no deficiency in service as the complainant approached to OP No.3 on 20.10.2015 for two times and Op No.3 replaced the adopter ( Receiver issue) vide delivery note on the same day without any charges as the phone of the complainant was well within warranty period which is evident from copy of service report (Annexure R3/1) and delivery report (Annexure R3/2). Thereafter, the complainant again approached the OP No.3 on the same day i.e. 20.10.2015 and at this time, the OP No.3 had replaced the camera part and device/ handset of the complainant started working fine which is evident from the copy of service report Annexure R3/4 and delivery report Annexure R3/3. Thereafter, the complainant never approached to the Op No.3 for any defect or repair. It has been further mentioned that handset of the complainant was under warranty upto 12.12.2015 and complainant was free to contact the OP No.3 or any of the authorized service centre of the Apple India Services, for any parts or full replacement of the handset but complainant rather to do this approached this Forum just to harass the OP No.3. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone; the OP No.3 is just authorized service centre of Apple India Private Limited and the warranty on the products is given by the said company and not by the OP No.3. The terms and conditions of the warranty card is enclosed as R3/5. It has been further mentioned that the complainant approached the OP No.3 after using the mobile set in question for 10 months, each and every defective parts of the hand set was replaced/repaired, so, the OP No.3 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service and on merit it has been denied that Op No.3 failed to remove the defects of the handset of the complainant and controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                     OP No.4 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint of the complainant is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed; i-phone sold in India by the Op No.4 through their authorized dealer/reseller are known for their cutting edge technology and utmost customer satisfaction. The OP No.4 company is world renowned market and innovation leader and has been flag bearer of technological advancements in the telecommunication devices, computing and communications space; in the event of any of the consumers of OP No.4 company, Op company feel that there is an issue with the said product they would have to get it checked with the authorized service provider of OP No.4. Only after the said service provider reviews and inspects the said iphone and confirms that there is any issue with the said iphone it will be either replaced or repaired or serviced depending on the verification of the service provider. In the present case, the authorized OP No.1 specifically mentioned that there was no defect which has been identified by the authorized service provider of the OP No.4 in the complainant’s iphone nor is there any sort of evidence provided by the complainant to show that the iphone given to him was defective, due to the same no fault can be attributed to OP No.4 or the device supplied by Op No.4. The OP No.2 which is an authorized service provider of OP No.4 diligently undertook efforts to diagnose the problem with the alleged iphone 6 16GB gold bearing serial No. C36NNKETG5MQ of the complainant when the same was brought to the OP No.3 on 25.09.2015 with the complaint alleging that his iphone was having issue pertaining to head phones. Accordingly, the OP No.2 made a thorough technical analysis on the iphone and identified issues with the head phones and as the said iphone was within warranty with its apple ear pods with remote and mic were replaced. The complainant accepted the same and acknowledged it on the service record issued by complainant. The services report issued by OP No.2 dated 25.09.2015 is Annexure R4/2. Complainant again approached the OP No.3 which is also an authorized service provider of Op No.4 on 25.10.2015 complaining he has problems with his adaptor and camera in the iphone. Accordingly, the OP No.3 made a thorough technical analysis on the iphone and identified issues with the camera and adaptor as the iphone was within warranty with its camera and adaptor were replaced. Complainant accepted the same and acknowledged it on the service report (Annexure R4/3) issued to the complainant. Besides these issues, there have been no other issue identified by the OPs No.2 & 3 on the complainant’s iphone till date and his warranty was valid up to 12.12.2015 if he still had any issues he should have shown his iphone either to OP No.2 or OP No.3 to identify the same and deal with it. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as neither there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question nor there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP no.4 and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill No. 33 dated 12.12.2014 of mobile phone as Annexure C-1, Carbon copy of service report dated 25.09.2015 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Service Report dated 20.10.2015 as Annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Vishal Gupta, Director of Paramatrix Info Solutions as Annexure RW3/A and documents such as photo copy of service report dated 20.10.2015 as Annexure R3/1, Photo copy of Delivery report as Annexure R3/2, Photo copy of delivery report dated 20.10.2015 as Annexure R3/3 and Photo copy of Service Report dated 20.10.2015 as Annexure R3/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP no.3.

9.                     Counsel for OP No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Priyesh Povanna S/o U.K. Nanaiah, Country Legal Counsel as Annexure RW4/A and documents such as photo copy of one year limited warranty as Annexure R4/1, Photo copy of service report as Annexure R4/2, Photo copy of service report dated 20.10.2015 as Annexure R4/3  and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.4.

10.                   We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

11.                   It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a mobile set iphone Apple bearing IMEI No. No. 355900069194472 from OP No.1 vide bill No. 33 dated 12.12.2014 for a sum of Rs. 53,500/- which is duly evident from the copy of Bill Annexure C-1. It is also not disputed that the mobile set in question was repaired on 25.09.2015 and 20.10.2015 which is evident from copy of job sheets and delivery report Annexure R-1 to R-4. It is also not disputed that the adapter as well as Camera parts were replaced by the service centre of OP no.4 which is evident from Annexure R3/1 and Annexure R3/3. It is also not disputed that the handset of the complainant was under warranty upto 12.12.2015 and the present complaint has been filed on 01.12.2015 i.e. within warranty period. From the perusal of job sheets dated 25.09.2015 and job sheet dated 20.10.2015 Annexure C-2 and C-3, it is evident that mobile set in question of the complainant remained out of order and during these repairs some defective parts were replaced by OPs No.2 & 3.

12                    Although the defects were removed by the OPs No. 2 & 3 by replacing the defective parts even then it cannot be said that complainant has not suffered any mental agony and harassment and financial loss because from the perusal of job sheets and delivery reports Annexure R-1 to R-4 it is duly evident that firstly complainant visited the service centre at Karnal (OP No.2) for getting the repair of mobile set in question and after that he visited the service centre at Chandigarh (OP No.3). In this way, he might have suffered the financial loss as well as harassment due to the defects in the mobile in question occurred during the currency of warranty period. No doubt complainant has not filed any expert report or mechanic report to prove that mobile set in question was having any manufacturing defect but there is admission of the OP No.2 and 3 in their written statement that some parts had been replaced during the warranty period of the mobile in question. Hence, it is duly evident that the defective mobile set in question was sold by the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.4.

13.                   The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer.                            

14.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No. 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant for visiting the service centre at Chandigarh as well as Karnal and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint against qua OPs No.1 to 3 is hereby dismissed. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 20.12.2016.

 

         (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                         PRESIDENT,

                                                                                         DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER.